Kenneth M. Karas
How Judge Karas decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He enforces clearly drafted contractual liability-limiting language at the pleading stage. Where an alarm-monitoring lease contained prominent exculpatory, no-warranty, and limitation-of-liability clauses, he dismissed a subrogated insurer's $1.5M negligence/breach suit outright on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. A plaintiff suing over a service contract should expect those clauses to be given full effect unless it can plead around them.
“Now pending is Rest Assured's motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) based on the exculpatory clauses contained in the contract between Rest Assured and Brass Anchor. (Dkt. No. 23.) The motion is granted.”
In an insurance coverage dispute he construes the duty to defend broadly against the insurer, resolving the question as a matter of law on cross-summary-judgment by comparing the underlying complaint's allegations to the policy. An insured seeking defense costs can press for summary judgment rather than waiting for the underlying litigation to conclude.
“For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' motion is granted and Defendant's motion is denied.”
Procedural preferences
He will decide several distinct dispositive motions from differently situated defendants in a single consolidated opinion, applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard to the movants who filed pre-answer motions and the Rule 56 standard to those who moved for summary judgment, rather than splitting them. Counsel in a multi-defendant case should expect one omnibus ruling that treats each motion on its own footing.
“Orange County, DSS, and Middletown have moved to dismiss. The Middletown Officers have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, Orange County's and DSS's motion to dismiss is granted; Middletown's motion to dismiss is granted in part; and the Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
Cautions
He denies summary judgment to police-officer defendants on Section 1983 excessive-force claims where the plaintiffs' account of being beaten while restraining a knife-wielding attacker raises genuine factual disputes. A defendant should not expect a station-house arrest narrative to be resolved on the papers where the force used is contested.
“the Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 5 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 3 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 2 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Before the Court is Defendants' Motion To Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ... For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Now pending is Rest Assured's motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) based on the exculpatory clauses contained in the contract between Rest Assured and Brass Anchor. (Dkt. No. 23.) The motion is granted.”
“Before the Court are the Parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.”
“Orange County, DSS, and Middletown have moved to dismiss. The Middletown Officers have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, Orange County's and DSS's motion to dismiss is granted; Middletown's motion to dismiss is granted in part; and the Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Orange County's and DSS's motion to dismiss is granted; Middletown's motion to dismiss is granted in part; and the Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Middletown's motion to dismiss is granted in part; and the Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Defendant has moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, in turn, have cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' motion is granted and Defendant's motion is denied.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' motion is granted and Defendant's motion is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample from search_dockets(assigned_judge='Kenneth M. Karas'). The visible docket is current and 2026-heavy and reflects current assignments at the White Plains courthouse (7:xx-cv prefix), not a tenure-wide caseload. No terminated dockets appeared on the page, so no case durations were computed.